Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1271

control, N = 641

treatment, N = 631

p-value2

age

125

50.62 ± 12.79 (25 - 74)

50.80 ± 12.67 (25 - 74)

50.44 ± 13.00 (28 - 73)

0.875

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

127

0.795

f

98 (77%)

50 (78%)

48 (76%)

m

29 (23%)

14 (22%)

15 (24%)

occupation

127

0.551

day_training

2 (1.6%)

2 (3.1%)

0 (0%)

full_time

16 (13%)

8 (12%)

8 (13%)

homemaker

12 (9.4%)

5 (7.8%)

7 (11%)

other

2 (1.6%)

0 (0%)

2 (3.2%)

part_time

22 (17%)

10 (16%)

12 (19%)

retired

35 (28%)

17 (27%)

18 (29%)

self_employ

4 (3.1%)

2 (3.1%)

2 (3.2%)

student

2 (1.6%)

0 (0%)

2 (3.2%)

t_and_e

2 (1.6%)

1 (1.6%)

1 (1.6%)

unemploy

30 (24%)

19 (30%)

11 (17%)

marital

127

0.808

cohabitation

1 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.6%)

divore

12 (9.4%)

8 (12%)

4 (6.3%)

in_relationship

3 (2.4%)

2 (3.1%)

1 (1.6%)

married

35 (28%)

18 (28%)

17 (27%)

none

66 (52%)

31 (48%)

35 (56%)

seperation

3 (2.4%)

2 (3.1%)

1 (1.6%)

widow

7 (5.5%)

3 (4.7%)

4 (6.3%)

edu

127

0.341

bachelor

32 (25%)

12 (19%)

20 (32%)

diploma

23 (18%)

15 (23%)

8 (13%)

hd_ad

3 (2.4%)

2 (3.1%)

1 (1.6%)

postgraduate

11 (8.7%)

5 (7.8%)

6 (9.5%)

primary

8 (6.3%)

2 (3.1%)

6 (9.5%)

secondary_1_3

16 (13%)

9 (14%)

7 (11%)

secondary_4_5

29 (23%)

17 (27%)

12 (19%)

secondary_6_7

5 (3.9%)

2 (3.1%)

3 (4.8%)

fam_income

127

0.979

10001_12000

6 (4.7%)

2 (3.1%)

4 (6.3%)

12001_14000

6 (4.7%)

3 (4.7%)

3 (4.8%)

14001_16000

6 (4.7%)

2 (3.1%)

4 (6.3%)

16001_18000

3 (2.4%)

1 (1.6%)

2 (3.2%)

18001_20000

5 (3.9%)

3 (4.7%)

2 (3.2%)

20001_above

25 (20%)

14 (22%)

11 (17%)

2001_4000

19 (15%)

11 (17%)

8 (13%)

4001_6000

12 (9.4%)

5 (7.8%)

7 (11%)

6001_8000

11 (8.7%)

6 (9.4%)

5 (7.9%)

8001_10000

9 (7.1%)

4 (6.2%)

5 (7.9%)

below_2000

25 (20%)

13 (20%)

12 (19%)

medication

127

112 (88%)

57 (89%)

55 (87%)

0.759

onset_duration

124

14.98 ± 10.30 (0 - 56)

15.95 ± 11.15 (0 - 56)

13.94 ± 9.30 (0 - 35)

0.278

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

122

35.89 ± 14.33 (10 - 65)

34.66 ± 13.01 (10 - 61)

37.16 ± 15.58 (14 - 65)

0.337

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1271

control, N = 641

treatment, N = 631

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

127

3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

3.28 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.10 ± 1.13 (1 - 5)

0.374

recovery_stage_b

127

17.98 ± 2.69 (9 - 24)

17.97 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

17.98 ± 2.64 (13 - 24)

0.975

ras_confidence

127

30.13 ± 4.91 (18 - 45)

29.97 ± 4.33 (19 - 40)

30.29 ± 5.47 (18 - 45)

0.718

ras_willingness

127

11.87 ± 2.05 (5 - 15)

11.77 ± 1.99 (5 - 15)

11.98 ± 2.12 (7 - 15)

0.550

ras_goal

127

17.42 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)

17.30 ± 2.80 (12 - 24)

17.54 ± 3.37 (11 - 25)

0.660

ras_reliance

127

13.32 ± 2.88 (7 - 20)

13.19 ± 2.64 (8 - 18)

13.46 ± 3.12 (7 - 20)

0.595

ras_domination

127

9.92 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.22 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

9.62 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

0.160

symptom

127

29.99 ± 9.39 (14 - 56)

30.03 ± 9.51 (14 - 55)

29.95 ± 9.34 (15 - 56)

0.962

slof_work

127

22.53 ± 4.71 (10 - 30)

22.73 ± 4.30 (13 - 30)

22.32 ± 5.12 (10 - 30)

0.620

slof_relationship

127

25.45 ± 5.80 (11 - 35)

25.02 ± 5.58 (13 - 35)

25.89 ± 6.04 (11 - 35)

0.399

satisfaction

127

20.77 ± 7.08 (5 - 35)

20.17 ± 6.67 (5 - 33)

21.38 ± 7.48 (5 - 35)

0.338

mhc_emotional

127

11.11 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.83 ± 3.63 (3 - 17)

11.40 ± 3.92 (4 - 18)

0.397

mhc_social

127

15.22 ± 5.56 (5 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.51 (7 - 30)

15.29 ± 5.65 (5 - 29)

0.896

mhc_psychological

127

22.09 ± 6.30 (6 - 36)

21.89 ± 5.78 (9 - 36)

22.30 ± 6.83 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

127

16.60 ± 4.65 (6 - 30)

16.11 ± 4.22 (6 - 24)

17.10 ± 5.03 (7 - 30)

0.234

social_provision

127

13.72 ± 2.79 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)

14.11 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)

0.115

els_value_living

127

17.06 ± 3.02 (5 - 25)

16.69 ± 2.62 (8 - 22)

17.43 ± 3.35 (5 - 25)

0.167

els_life_fulfill

127

12.77 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

12.30 ± 3.20 (5 - 19)

13.25 ± 3.63 (4 - 20)

0.117

els

127

29.83 ± 5.82 (9 - 45)

28.98 ± 5.06 (17 - 38)

30.68 ± 6.43 (9 - 45)

0.100

social_connect

127

26.27 ± 9.21 (8 - 48)

26.91 ± 8.75 (8 - 45)

25.62 ± 9.68 (8 - 48)

0.433

shs_agency

127

14.39 ± 5.14 (3 - 24)

14.03 ± 4.66 (3 - 21)

14.75 ± 5.59 (3 - 24)

0.435

shs_pathway

127

16.17 ± 3.93 (4 - 24)

15.92 ± 3.65 (8 - 24)

16.43 ± 4.21 (4 - 24)

0.470

shs

127

30.56 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)

29.95 ± 7.92 (13 - 45)

31.17 ± 9.35 (7 - 48)

0.428

esteem

127

12.63 ± 1.64 (10 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)

12.52 ± 1.71 (10 - 20)

0.472

mlq_search

127

14.91 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

14.78 ± 3.22 (6 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.82 (3 - 21)

0.690

mlq_presence

127

13.56 ± 4.19 (3 - 21)

13.48 ± 3.73 (5 - 21)

13.63 ± 4.65 (3 - 21)

0.841

mlq

127

28.46 ± 6.88 (6 - 42)

28.27 ± 5.98 (12 - 40)

28.67 ± 7.73 (6 - 42)

0.744

empower

127

19.23 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

18.88 ± 4.15 (11 - 30)

19.59 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

0.356

ismi_resistance

127

14.61 ± 2.58 (5 - 20)

14.56 ± 2.20 (10 - 20)

14.65 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

0.848

ismi_discrimation

127

11.43 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

11.95 ± 3.01 (5 - 20)

10.90 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.058

sss_affective

127

9.94 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.11 ± 3.52 (3 - 18)

9.76 ± 3.59 (3 - 18)

0.583

sss_behavior

127

9.59 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.94 (3 - 18)

9.22 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)

0.278

sss_cognitive

127

8.09 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

8.30 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

7.87 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

0.516

sss

127

27.61 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)

28.36 ± 10.34 (9 - 54)

26.86 ± 9.92 (9 - 54)

0.405

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.28

0.144

3.00, 3.56

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.186

0.204

-0.585, 0.213

0.363

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.048

0.236

-0.414, 0.510

0.840

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.473

0.336

-0.186, 1.13

0.163

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.351

17.3, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.015

0.498

-0.961, 0.991

0.975

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.344

0.538

-1.40, 0.711

0.525

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.800

0.768

-0.706, 2.30

0.301

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.0

0.628

28.7, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.317

0.892

-1.43, 2.07

0.723

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.726

0.749

-0.742, 2.19

0.336

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.08

1.069

-1.02, 3.17

0.318

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.8

0.257

11.3, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.219

0.365

-0.497, 0.934

0.551

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.609

0.299

-1.20, -0.022

0.046

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.802

0.427

-0.035, 1.64

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.397

16.5, 18.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.243

0.564

-0.862, 1.35

0.667

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.422

0.498

-1.40, 0.554

0.400

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.57

0.711

0.173, 2.96

0.031

Pseudo R square

0.027

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.359

12.5, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.273

0.509

-0.725, 1.27

0.593

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.337

0.405

-0.456, 1.13

0.408

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.03

0.578

-0.100, 2.16

0.079

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.293

9.64, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.600

0.416

-1.42, 0.216

0.152

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.265

0.428

-1.10, 0.574

0.538

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.39

0.611

0.197, 2.59

0.026

Pseudo R square

0.026

symptom

(Intercept)

30.0

1.177

27.7, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.079

1.671

-3.35, 3.20

0.962

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.141

1.090

-2.28, 1.99

0.898

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.41

1.555

-4.46, 1.63

0.367

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.588

21.6, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.417

0.834

-2.05, 1.22

0.618

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.279

0.654

-1.56, 1.00

0.671

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.353

0.933

-1.48, 2.18

0.706

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.722

23.6, 26.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.873

1.026

-1.14, 2.88

0.396

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.16

0.770

-2.67, 0.348

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.85

1.099

-0.304, 4.00

0.098

Pseudo R square

0.020

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.2

0.893

18.4, 21.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.21

1.267

-1.27, 3.69

0.342

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.532

1.072

-1.57, 2.63

0.621

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.550

1.530

-2.45, 3.55

0.720

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.467

9.91, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.569

0.664

-0.732, 1.87

0.393

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.351

0.503

-0.634, 1.34

0.487

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.219

0.718

-1.63, 1.19

0.761

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

0.715

13.8, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.129

1.015

-1.86, 2.12

0.899

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.588

0.874

-1.13, 2.30

0.504

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.314

1.248

-2.76, 2.13

0.802

Pseudo R square

0.001

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.9

0.817

20.3, 23.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.411

1.160

-1.86, 2.68

0.724

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.665

0.982

-1.26, 2.59

0.501

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.022

1.402

-2.77, 2.73

0.988

Pseudo R square

0.003

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.569

15.0, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.986

0.808

-0.598, 2.57

0.224

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.192

0.712

-1.20, 1.59

0.788

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.40

1.016

-0.587, 3.40

0.172

Pseudo R square

0.035

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.354

12.6, 14.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.783

0.502

-0.201, 1.77

0.121

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.606

0.465

-1.52, 0.305

0.197

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.745

0.663

-0.555, 2.05

0.265

Pseudo R square

0.035

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.384

15.9, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.741

0.545

-0.327, 1.81

0.176

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.232

0.479

-0.707, 1.17

0.630

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.270

0.683

-1.07, 1.61

0.694

Pseudo R square

0.021

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.421

11.5, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.957

0.598

-0.215, 2.13

0.112

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.558

0.411

-0.247, 1.36

0.180

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.231

0.587

-1.38, 0.919

0.695

Pseudo R square

0.021

els

(Intercept)

29.0

0.728

27.6, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.70

1.034

-0.329, 3.73

0.103

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.766

0.747

-0.698, 2.23

0.309

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.064

1.066

-2.02, 2.15

0.952

Pseudo R square

0.025

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.168

24.6, 29.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.29

1.659

-4.54, 1.96

0.439

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.27

1.213

-1.10, 3.65

0.298

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.66

1.732

-7.06, -0.267

0.039

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.641

12.8, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.715

0.910

-1.07, 2.50

0.434

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.063

0.683

-1.27, 1.40

0.926

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.819

0.975

-1.09, 2.73

0.404

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.9

0.488

15.0, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.507

0.693

-0.852, 1.87

0.466

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.151

0.525

-0.878, 1.18

0.774

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.012

0.750

-1.46, 1.48

0.987

Pseudo R square

0.005

shs

(Intercept)

30.0

1.074

27.8, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.22

1.525

-1.77, 4.21

0.425

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.217

1.106

-1.95, 2.38

0.845

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.807

1.578

-2.29, 3.90

0.611

Pseudo R square

0.009

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.192

12.4, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.211

0.273

-0.745, 0.324

0.441

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.008

0.307

-0.610, 0.593

0.979

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.210

0.438

-0.648, 1.07

0.634

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.435

13.9, 15.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.250

0.617

-0.959, 1.46

0.685

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.127

0.598

-1.05, 1.30

0.833

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.200

0.853

-1.87, 1.47

0.816

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.5

0.522

12.5, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.151

0.740

-1.30, 1.60

0.839

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.214

0.634

-1.03, 1.46

0.737

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.081

0.905

-1.69, 1.85

0.929

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.3

0.862

26.6, 30.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.401

1.224

-2.00, 2.80

0.744

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.351

1.091

-1.79, 2.49

0.748

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.106

1.557

-3.16, 2.95

0.946

Pseudo R square

0.001

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.541

17.8, 19.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.712

0.768

-0.794, 2.22

0.356

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.199

0.551

-0.881, 1.28

0.719

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.462

0.786

-2.00, 1.08

0.559

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.6

0.317

13.9, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.088

0.450

-0.793, 0.970

0.845

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.059

0.455

-0.950, 0.833

0.898

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.523

0.649

-0.749, 1.79

0.423

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.390

11.2, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.554

-2.13, 0.037

0.060

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.348

0.458

-1.25, 0.551

0.451

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.362

0.654

-0.920, 1.64

0.582

Pseudo R square

0.024

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.437

9.25, 11.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.347

0.620

-1.56, 0.868

0.576

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.137

0.497

-0.837, 1.11

0.783

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.18

0.710

-2.57, 0.214

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.95

0.465

9.04, 10.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.731

0.660

-2.02, 0.562

0.270

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.032

0.538

-1.09, 1.02

0.952

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.644

0.768

-2.15, 0.861

0.405

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.30

0.454

7.41, 9.19

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.424

0.644

-1.69, 0.839

0.512

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.689

0.521

-0.333, 1.71

0.191

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.31

0.744

-2.76, 0.152

0.084

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss

(Intercept)

28.4

1.255

25.9, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.50

1.782

-4.99, 1.99

0.401

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.746

1.322

-1.85, 3.34

0.575

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.00

1.887

-6.70, 0.696

0.117

Pseudo R square

0.020

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [3.00, 3.56], t(174) = 22.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.21], t(174) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.13], t(174) = 1.41, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.98])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.97 (95% CI [17.28, 18.66], t(174) = 51.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.99], t(174) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 5.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.71], t(174) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.30], t(174) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.97 (95% CI [28.74, 31.20], t(174) = 47.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(174) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.19], t(174) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.17], t(174) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [11.26, 12.27], t(174) = 45.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.93], t(174) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.02], t(174) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.64], t(174) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.30 (95% CI [16.52, 18.07], t(174) = 43.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.35], t(174) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.55], t(174) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [0.17, 2.96], t(174) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.05, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.19 (95% CI [12.48, 13.89], t(174) = 36.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.27], t(174) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.13], t(174) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.16], t(174) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.64, 10.79], t(174) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.22], t(174) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.57], t(174) = -0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.20, 2.59], t(174) = 2.28, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.08, 1.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.03 (95% CI [27.73, 32.34], t(174) = 25.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-3.35, 3.20], t(174) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -8.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.99], t(174) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-4.46, 1.63], t(174) = -0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.73 (95% CI [21.58, 23.89], t(174) = 38.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.22], t(174) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.00], t(174) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.18], t(174) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.02 (95% CI [23.60, 26.43], t(174) = 34.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.88], t(174) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.35], t(174) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [-0.30, 4.00], t(174) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.17 (95% CI [18.42, 21.92], t(174) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.27, 3.69], t(174) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.63], t(174) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.45, 3.55], t(174) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.83 (95% CI [9.91, 11.74], t(174) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.87], t(174) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.34], t(174) = 0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.19], t(174) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.76, 16.56], t(174) = 21.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.12], t(174) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.30], t(174) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-2.76, 2.13], t(174) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.89 (95% CI [20.29, 23.49], t(174) = 26.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.68], t(174) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.59], t(174) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.77, 2.73], t(174) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -3.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.99, 17.22], t(174) = 28.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.57], t(174) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.59], t(174) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.59, 3.40], t(174) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.63, 14.02], t(174) = 37.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.77], t(174) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.31], t(174) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.05], t(174) = 1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.69 (95% CI [15.94, 17.44], t(174) = 43.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.81], t(174) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.17], t(174) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.61], t(174) = 0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.30 (95% CI [11.47, 13.12], t(174) = 29.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.13], t(174) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.36], t(174) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.92], t(174) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.98 (95% CI [27.56, 30.41], t(174) = 39.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.33, 3.73], t(174) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.23], t(174) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.02, 2.15], t(174) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.91 (95% CI [24.62, 29.20], t(174) = 23.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.54, 1.96], t(174) = -0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.10, 3.65], t(174) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.66, 95% CI [-7.06, -0.27], t(174) = -2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.03 (95% CI [12.77, 15.29], t(174) = 21.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.50], t(174) = 0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.40], t(174) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.73], t(174) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.92 (95% CI [14.97, 16.88], t(174) = 32.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.87], t(174) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.18], t(174) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.48], t(174) = 0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = 3.16e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.85, 32.06], t(174) = 27.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.77, 4.21], t(174) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.95, 2.38], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-2.29, 3.90], t(174) = 0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.73 (95% CI [12.36, 13.11], t(174) = 66.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.32], t(174) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.59], t(174) = -0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = -5.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.07], t(174) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.48e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.93, 15.63], t(174) = 34.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.46], t(174) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.30], t(174) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.47], t(174) = -0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.48 (95% CI [12.46, 14.51], t(174) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.60], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.46], t(174) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.85], t(174) = 0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.27 (95% CI [26.58, 29.96], t(174) = 32.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.80], t(174) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.49], t(174) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-3.16, 2.95], t(174) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.88 (95% CI [17.81, 19.94], t(174) = 34.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.22], t(174) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.28], t(174) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.08], t(174) = -0.59, p = 0.557; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.56 (95% CI [13.94, 15.18], t(174) = 45.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.97], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.83], t(174) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.79], t(174) = 0.81, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.95 (95% CI [11.19, 12.72], t(174) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.04], t(174) = -1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.55], t(174) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.64], t(174) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.11 (95% CI [9.25, 10.97], t(174) = 23.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.87], t(174) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.11], t(174) = 0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.21], t(174) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.04, 10.86], t(174) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.56], t(174) = -1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.02], t(174) = -0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = -8.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.15, 0.86], t(174) = -0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.30 (95% CI [7.41, 9.19], t(174) = 18.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.84], t(174) = -0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.71], t(174) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.15], t(174) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.36 (95% CI [25.90, 30.82], t(174) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-4.99, 1.99], t(174) = -0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.34], t(174) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.00, 95% CI [-6.70, 0.70], t(174) = -1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

563.105

572.684

-278.552

557.105

recovery_stage_a

random

6

564.197

583.355

-276.099

552.197

4.908

3

0.179

recovery_stage_b

null

3

876.395

885.974

-435.198

870.395

recovery_stage_b

random

6

881.046

900.203

-434.523

869.046

1.350

3

0.717

ras_confidence

null

3

1,069.546

1,079.125

-531.773

1,063.546

ras_confidence

random

6

1,068.678

1,087.836

-528.339

1,056.678

6.868

3

0.076

ras_willingness

null

3

744.692

754.271

-369.346

738.692

ras_willingness

random

6

744.917

764.075

-366.458

732.917

5.775

3

0.123

ras_goal

null

3

909.166

918.745

-451.583

903.166

ras_goal

random

6

908.206

927.363

-448.103

896.206

6.961

3

0.073

ras_reliance

null

3

867.883

877.462

-430.941

861.883

ras_reliance

random

6

861.651

880.809

-424.826

849.651

12.232

3

0.007

ras_domination

null

3

813.688

823.267

-403.844

807.688

ras_domination

random

6

812.431

831.588

-400.215

800.431

7.257

3

0.064

symptom

null

3

1,265.774

1,275.353

-629.887

1,259.774

symptom

random

6

1,269.713

1,288.871

-628.856

1,257.713

2.061

3

0.560

slof_work

null

3

1,032.277

1,041.856

-513.139

1,026.277

slof_work

random

6

1,037.900

1,057.058

-512.950

1,025.900

0.377

3

0.945

slof_relationship

null

3

1,106.867

1,116.446

-550.434

1,100.867

slof_relationship

random

6

1,108.135

1,127.293

-548.068

1,096.135

4.732

3

0.192

satisfaction

null

3

1,192.253

1,201.832

-593.127

1,186.253

satisfaction

random

6

1,195.791

1,214.949

-591.896

1,183.791

2.462

3

0.482

mhc_emotional

null

3

947.486

957.064

-470.743

941.486

mhc_emotional

random

6

952.258

971.416

-470.129

940.258

1.228

3

0.746

mhc_social

null

3

1,112.082

1,121.661

-553.041

1,106.082

mhc_social

random

6

1,117.516

1,136.674

-552.758

1,105.516

0.566

3

0.904

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,159.114

1,168.692

-576.557

1,153.114

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,164.087

1,183.245

-576.044

1,152.087

1.026

3

0.795

resilisnce

null

3

1,039.345

1,048.924

-516.673

1,033.345

resilisnce

random

6

1,037.645

1,056.803

-512.823

1,025.645

7.700

3

0.053

social_provision

null

3

870.786

880.365

-432.393

864.786

social_provision

random

6

870.912

890.070

-429.456

858.912

5.874

3

0.118

els_value_living

null

3

893.129

902.708

-443.565

887.129

els_value_living

random

6

895.419

914.577

-441.710

883.419

3.710

3

0.295

els_life_fulfill

null

3

904.049

913.627

-449.024

898.049

els_life_fulfill

random

6

905.145

924.303

-446.573

893.145

4.903

3

0.179

els

null

3

1,106.421

1,116.000

-550.211

1,100.421

els

random

6

1,107.252

1,126.409

-547.626

1,095.252

5.170

3

0.160

social_connect

null

3

1,279.107

1,288.685

-636.553

1,273.107

social_connect

random

6

1,278.583

1,297.741

-633.292

1,266.583

6.523

3

0.089

shs_agency

null

3

1,061.722

1,071.301

-527.861

1,055.722

shs_agency

random

6

1,065.027

1,084.184

-526.513

1,053.027

2.696

3

0.441

shs_pathway

null

3

962.731

972.310

-478.365

956.731

shs_pathway

random

6

967.976

987.133

-477.988

955.976

0.755

3

0.860

shs

null

3

1,243.317

1,252.896

-618.658

1,237.317

shs

random

6

1,247.532

1,266.690

-617.766

1,235.532

1.785

3

0.618

esteem

null

3

661.993

671.572

-327.996

655.993

esteem

random

6

667.154

686.312

-327.577

655.154

0.839

3

0.840

mlq_search

null

3

943.432

953.011

-468.716

937.432

mlq_search

random

6

949.249

968.406

-468.624

937.249

0.184

3

0.980

mlq_presence

null

3

997.849

1,007.428

-495.925

991.849

mlq_presence

random

6

1,003.458

1,022.616

-495.729

991.458

0.391

3

0.942

mlq

null

3

1,182.528

1,192.107

-588.264

1,176.528

mlq

random

6

1,188.265

1,207.422

-588.132

1,176.265

0.263

3

0.967

empower

null

3

994.592

1,004.170

-494.296

988.592

empower

random

6

999.560

1,018.717

-493.780

987.560

1.032

3

0.794

ismi_resistance

null

3

834.347

843.926

-414.173

828.347

ismi_resistance

random

6

839.037

858.195

-413.519

827.037

1.310

3

0.727

ismi_discrimation

null

3

893.679

903.258

-443.840

887.679

ismi_discrimation

random

6

895.802

914.960

-441.901

883.802

3.877

3

0.275

sss_affective

null

3

932.831

942.409

-463.415

926.831

sss_affective

random

6

933.442

952.600

-460.721

921.442

5.389

3

0.145

sss_behavior

null

3

954.771

964.349

-474.385

948.771

sss_behavior

random

6

957.311

976.469

-472.656

945.311

3.459

3

0.326

sss_cognitive

null

3

946.555

956.134

-470.277

940.555

sss_cognitive

random

6

948.054

967.212

-468.027

936.054

4.500

3

0.212

sss

null

3

1,304.535

1,314.113

-649.267

1,298.535

sss

random

6

1,305.782

1,324.940

-646.891

1,293.782

4.753

3

0.191

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

64

3.28 ± 1.15

63

3.10 ± 1.15

0.363

0.191

recovery_stage_a

2nd

27

3.33 ± 1.13

-0.049

26

3.62 ± 1.13

-0.535

0.358

-0.294

recovery_stage_b

1st

64

17.97 ± 2.81

63

17.98 ± 2.81

0.975

-0.007

recovery_stage_b

2nd

27

17.62 ± 2.70

0.158

26

18.44 ± 2.69

-0.209

0.273

-0.374

ras_confidence

1st

64

29.97 ± 5.03

63

30.29 ± 5.03

0.723

-0.109

ras_confidence

2nd

27

30.69 ± 4.35

-0.251

26

32.09 ± 4.33

-0.622

0.245

-0.481

ras_willingness

1st

64

11.77 ± 2.06

63

11.98 ± 2.06

0.551

-0.189

ras_willingness

2nd

27

11.16 ± 1.76

0.528

26

12.18 ± 1.76

-0.167

0.036

-0.885

ras_goal

1st

64

17.30 ± 3.18

63

17.54 ± 3.18

0.667

-0.125

ras_goal

2nd

27

16.87 ± 2.80

0.218

26

18.68 ± 2.80

-0.591

0.020

-0.934

ras_reliance

1st

64

13.19 ± 2.87

63

13.46 ± 2.87

0.593

-0.175

ras_reliance

2nd

27

13.52 ± 2.43

-0.217

26

14.83 ± 2.42

-0.881

0.052

-0.839

ras_domination

1st

64

10.22 ± 2.34

63

9.62 ± 2.34

0.151

0.351

ras_domination

2nd

27

9.95 ± 2.21

0.155

26

10.75 ± 2.20

-0.660

0.192

-0.464

symptom

1st

64

30.03 ± 9.41

63

29.95 ± 9.41

0.962

0.019

symptom

2nd

27

29.89 ± 7.44

0.034

26

28.40 ± 7.40

0.378

0.465

0.363

slof_work

1st

64

22.73 ± 4.70

63

22.32 ± 4.70

0.618

0.166

slof_work

2nd

27

22.46 ± 3.96

0.111

26

22.39 ± 3.94

-0.030

0.953

0.025

slof_relationship

1st

64

25.02 ± 5.78

63

25.89 ± 5.78

0.396

-0.297

slof_relationship

2nd

27

23.85 ± 4.79

0.395

26

26.58 ± 4.77

-0.234

0.040

-0.926

satisfaction

1st

64

20.17 ± 7.14

63

21.38 ± 7.14

0.342

-0.292

satisfaction

2nd

27

20.70 ± 6.19

-0.128

26

22.46 ± 6.18

-0.261

0.302

-0.424

mhc_emotional

1st

64

10.83 ± 3.74

63

11.40 ± 3.74

0.393

-0.296

mhc_emotional

2nd

27

11.18 ± 3.11

-0.183

26

11.53 ± 3.10

-0.069

0.682

-0.182

mhc_social

1st

64

15.16 ± 5.72

63

15.29 ± 5.72

0.899

-0.038

mhc_social

2nd

27

15.74 ± 5.00

-0.173

26

15.56 ± 4.98

-0.081

0.893

0.054

mhc_psychological

1st

64

21.89 ± 6.54

63

22.30 ± 6.54

0.724

-0.108

mhc_psychological

2nd

27

22.56 ± 5.67

-0.175

26

22.94 ± 5.66

-0.169

0.803

-0.102

resilisnce

1st

64

16.11 ± 4.55

63

17.10 ± 4.55

0.224

-0.356

resilisnce

2nd

27

16.30 ± 4.01

-0.070

26

18.69 ± 4.01

-0.577

0.031

-0.863

social_provision

1st

64

13.33 ± 2.83

63

14.11 ± 2.83

0.121

-0.430

social_provision

2nd

27

12.72 ± 2.55

0.333

26

14.25 ± 2.54

-0.077

0.030

-0.839

els_value_living

1st

64

16.69 ± 3.07

63

17.43 ± 3.07

0.176

-0.398

els_value_living

2nd

27

16.92 ± 2.70

-0.125

26

17.93 ± 2.70

-0.270

0.175

-0.543

els_life_fulfill

1st

64

12.30 ± 3.37

63

13.25 ± 3.37

0.112

-0.614

els_life_fulfill

2nd

27

12.86 ± 2.71

-0.358

26

13.58 ± 2.70

-0.210

0.329

-0.466

els

1st

64

28.98 ± 5.83

63

30.68 ± 5.83

0.103

-0.597

els

2nd

27

29.75 ± 4.76

-0.269

26

31.51 ± 4.74

-0.292

0.179

-0.620

social_connect

1st

64

26.91 ± 9.35

63

25.62 ± 9.35

0.439

0.278

social_connect

2nd

27

28.18 ± 7.67

-0.275

26

23.23 ± 7.64

0.516

0.020

1.070

shs_agency

1st

64

14.03 ± 5.13

63

14.75 ± 5.13

0.434

-0.274

shs_agency

2nd

27

14.09 ± 4.25

-0.024

26

15.63 ± 4.23

-0.338

0.190

-0.588

shs_pathway

1st

64

15.92 ± 3.91

63

16.43 ± 3.91

0.466

-0.252

shs_pathway

2nd

27

16.07 ± 3.25

-0.075

26

16.59 ± 3.24

-0.081

0.561

-0.258

shs

1st

64

29.95 ± 8.59

63

31.17 ± 8.59

0.425

-0.290

shs

2nd

27

30.17 ± 7.03

-0.052

26

32.20 ± 7.00

-0.243

0.294

-0.482

esteem

1st

64

12.73 ± 1.54

63

12.52 ± 1.54

0.441

0.168

esteem

2nd

27

12.73 ± 1.50

0.006

26

12.73 ± 1.50

-0.161

0.999

0.000

mlq_search

1st

64

14.78 ± 3.48

63

15.03 ± 3.48

0.685

-0.106

mlq_search

2nd

27

14.91 ± 3.19

-0.054

26

14.96 ± 3.19

0.031

0.954

-0.021

mlq_presence

1st

64

13.48 ± 4.17

63

13.63 ± 4.17

0.839

-0.061

mlq_presence

2nd

27

13.70 ± 3.64

-0.087

26

13.93 ± 3.63

-0.120

0.817

-0.094

mlq

1st

64

28.27 ± 6.90

63

28.67 ± 6.90

0.744

-0.094

mlq

2nd

27

28.62 ± 6.11

-0.083

26

28.91 ± 6.10

-0.058

0.860

-0.070

empower

1st

64

18.88 ± 4.33

63

19.59 ± 4.33

0.356

-0.340

empower

2nd

27

19.07 ± 3.53

-0.095

26

19.32 ± 3.51

0.125

0.796

-0.120

ismi_resistance

1st

64

14.56 ± 2.53

63

14.65 ± 2.53

0.845

-0.049

ismi_resistance

2nd

27

14.50 ± 2.37

0.032

26

15.11 ± 2.37

-0.256

0.349

-0.338

ismi_discrimation

1st

64

11.95 ± 3.12

63

10.90 ± 3.12

0.060

0.593

ismi_discrimation

2nd

27

11.61 ± 2.68

0.197

26

10.92 ± 2.68

-0.008

0.353

0.388

sss_affective

1st

64

10.11 ± 3.50

63

9.76 ± 3.50

0.576

0.182

sss_affective

2nd

27

10.25 ± 2.97

-0.072

26

8.72 ± 2.96

0.544

0.063

0.797

sss_behavior

1st

64

9.95 ± 3.72

63

9.22 ± 3.72

0.270

0.353

sss_behavior

2nd

27

9.92 ± 3.18

0.016

26

8.55 ± 3.17

0.326

0.117

0.663

sss_cognitive

1st

64

8.30 ± 3.63

63

7.87 ± 3.63

0.512

0.211

sss_cognitive

2nd

27

8.99 ± 3.09

-0.343

26

7.26 ± 3.08

0.308

0.043

0.862

sss

1st

64

28.36 ± 10.04

63

26.86 ± 10.04

0.401

0.298

sss

2nd

27

29.11 ± 8.28

-0.148

26

24.60 ± 8.25

0.447

0.049

0.893

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(168.47) = -0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.22)

2st

t(169.30) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(162.02) = 0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.00)

2st

t(165.34) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.28)

ras_confidence

1st

t(144.53) = 0.36, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.08)

2st

t(166.73) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.96 to 3.75)

ras_willingness

1st

t(143.35) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.94)

2st

t(167.68) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.97)

ras_goal

1st

t(147.16) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.36)

2st

t(165.05) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.33)

ras_reliance

1st

t(142.04) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.28)

2st

t(168.86) = 1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.62)

ras_domination

1st

t(157.69) = -1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.22)

2st

t(163.80) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.99)

symptom

1st

t(135.68) = -0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.38 to 3.22)

2st

t(175.18) = -0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-5.52 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st

t(141.45) = -0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.07 to 1.23)

2st

t(169.42) = -0.06, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.21 to 2.08)

slof_relationship

1st

t(139.86) = 0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.90)

2st

t(171.06) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.13 to 5.32)

satisfaction

1st

t(144.86) = 0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.30 to 3.71)

2st

t(166.49) = 1.04, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.60 to 5.11)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(140.18) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.88)

2st

t(170.73) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.03)

mhc_social

1st

t(145.80) = 0.13, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.13)

2st

t(165.84) = -0.13, p = 0.893, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.89 to 2.52)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(144.91) = 0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.70)

2st

t(166.45) = 0.25, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.68 to 3.46)

resilisnce

1st

t(147.02) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.58)

2st

t(165.13) = 2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.22 to 4.57)

social_provision

1st

t(149.93) = 1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.78)

2st

t(163.92) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.91)

els_value_living

1st

t(146.87) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.82)

2st

t(165.21) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(137.05) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.14)

2st

t(174.00) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.19)

els

1st

t(138.53) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.35 to 3.74)

2st

t(172.48) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.81 to 4.34)

social_connect

1st

t(138.96) = -0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.57 to 1.99)

2st

t(172.02) = -2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-9.10 to -0.80)

shs_agency

1st

t(139.82) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.51)

2st

t(171.10) = 1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.83)

shs_pathway

1st

t(140.20) = 0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.88)

2st

t(170.70) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.28)

shs

1st

t(138.67) = 0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.79 to 4.24)

2st

t(172.33) = 1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.78 to 5.84)

esteem

1st

t(165.84) = -0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.33)

2st

t(167.47) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.81)

mlq_search

1st

t(153.00) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.47)

2st

t(163.37) = 0.06, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.78)

mlq_presence

1st

t(145.46) = 0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.61)

2st

t(166.07) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.20)

mlq

1st

t(147.64) = 0.33, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.82)

2st

t(164.81) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.02 to 3.61)

empower

1st

t(138.31) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.23)

2st

t(172.72) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.16)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(156.23) = 0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.98)

2st

t(163.52) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.90)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(143.81) = -1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.05)

2st

t(167.29) = -0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.77)

sss_affective

1st

t(142.40) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.88)

2st

t(168.52) = -1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.08)

sss_behavior

1st

t(143.17) = -1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.57)

2st

t(167.84) = -1.58, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-3.10 to 0.35)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(142.81) = -0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.85)

2st

t(168.15) = -2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.41 to -0.05)

sss

1st

t(139.44) = -0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.02)

2st

t(171.50) = -1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-8.99 to -0.02)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(87.73) = 2.15, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.00)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(79.37) = 0.83, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.55)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(63.76) = 2.35, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.33)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(62.90) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(65.76) = 2.24, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.16)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(61.95) = 3.31, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.54 to 2.20)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 2.57, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.00)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(57.61) = -1.40, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.67)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(61.54) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.41)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.42) = 0.87, p = 0.771, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.26)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.01) = 0.99, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.27)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(60.64) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(64.72) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.06)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.05) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.65)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(65.65) = 2.19, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.05)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(67.96) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.53) = 1.02, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.52) = 0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.17)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.51) = 1.09, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.36)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.80) = -1.92, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.87 to 0.09)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.40) = 1.26, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.28)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.66) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.24)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.60) = 0.91, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.29)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(84.00) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.83)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(70.54) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.15)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(64.46) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.59)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(66.13) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.48)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(59.36) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.86)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(73.46) = 1.00, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.39)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.23) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.95)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(62.21) = -2.04, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.06 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(62.77) = -1.23, p = 0.447, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(62.51) = -1.16, p = 0.503, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.45)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.14) = -1.67, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.96 to 0.45)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(86.97) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(78.80) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.74)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(63.53) = 0.96, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.23)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(62.69) = -2.03, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.21 to -0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(65.49) = -0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(61.76) = 0.83, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.15)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(74.39) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.59)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(57.50) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.05)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(61.35) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.03)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.26) = -1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.38)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(63.78) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.68)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(60.47) = 0.70, p = 0.978, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(64.47) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.34)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(63.81) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.64)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(65.38) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.62)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(67.64) = -1.30, p = 0.399, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.33)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.27) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.39) = 1.35, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.36) = 1.02, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.26)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.65) = 1.05, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.71)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.23) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.43)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.49) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.46) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.44)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(83.32) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.61)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(70.16) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.33)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(64.22) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.49)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(65.85) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.54)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(59.22) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.30)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(73.02) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.85)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.02) = -0.75, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(62.02) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(62.56) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(62.30) = 1.32, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.74)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(59.98) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.40)

Plot

Clinical significance